Demokratik mantık ve Demokratik Düzende Siyasi Partiler

In a modern country with more than a few hundred citizens, it is obvious that most decisions concerning the State, its policies, its activities, etc. must be taken by representatives, if only by virtue of the division of labour. But should there also be a place for the direct expression of the peoples' will, for the referendum, in other words? This question opens two options, one of principle, the other practical. The question of principle is classic: is democracy better served by representatives, as MONTESQUIEU maintained in France, or by direct vote of the citizens, as ROUSSEAU maintained? 
Democratic logic favours ROUSSEAU's thesis:
- If the people are sovereign, why believe them incapable of deciding for themselves?
- Elected representatives may have a personal will opposed to that of their electorate: recent examples in western Europe have shown that the answer given by the people directly consulted differed from that of their representatives.
- The referendum frees the people from the supervision of parties. 
Conversely, it can be noted:
- that many political questions are beyond the real understanding of "the man in the street";
- that the real purpose of the referendum is distorted because the mass of citizens regard it as a vote for or against the party in power;
- that a too frequent use of referenda discourages the electorate who can no longer be bothered to vote.
(https://book.coe.int/eur/en/constitutional-law/678-constitution-making-as-an-instrument-of-democratic-transition-science-and-technique-of-democracy-no-3.html)

Demokratik mantık kavramı üzerine biraz düşünelim.

Ahmet İnsel Türkiye'deki siyasi düzenin seçimli otokrasi olduğunu önerdi. Seçimlerin bağlamının biraz fazla bulanıklaştırıldığı bir Türkiye'de deneyimli Birikim yazarının bu tesbiti önemli: yanlış ya da doğru AKP'nin demokrasiyi Türkiye'de toparlayacağından umutlu olunduğu günlerde her eleştiri için eldeki en önemli sayılabilecek cevap seçim galibiyetiydi. Sevgili Ahmet İnsel de o dönem bizzat tanığı olduğu bir tür demokrasi hareketinin ve kurulması umulmuş bir demokrasi geleneğine emek verdiği günlerden bugünkü duruma gelindiğinde "hayal kırıklığının" siyasal partilerden kaynaklandığını öneriyor...

"Demokratik bir hukuk devleti"nde oylama yani demokratik seçimler demokratik düzenin prensipleri temelinde (hukuken de) düzenlenir: (Bugün Avrupa'da demokratik oylama ile referandumun farkı üzerinde duruluyor.)(...) the choice of an electoral system must be based on three types of consideration: - the existing political and social structures and their probable development (this includes the problem of multi-nationality States); - the type of system adopted in terms of the relation between executive and legislature: a parliamentary system has a far greater need for a stable and coherent parliamentary majority than a presidential system (below, No.33); - the interaction of laws concerning the electoral system and the structural effects that the system involves in practice. UNIDEM: 1992

Türkiye için şunu söylemek yanlış olmaz: oylamaya giden süreç otokrat siyasetlerin yolunu açıyor. Seçimli otokrasiyi seçime giden yol üzerinden incelemekte fayda var. Ben şahsen Çin'deki gibi bir tek parti rejiminin AKP ile kurulu olduğunu da düşünenlerdenim. AKP'nin 2002 yılındaki kadrosu ile bugüne kadar ki değişikliklere bakılıp biraz daha incelendiğinde, yeri geldiğinde ANAP'tan, DYP'den hatta MHP'den ve tabii ki Refah Partisinden yetişmiş siyasetçilerin de bakan olduklarını görüyoruz. Bu AKP'nin otokrasi üzerinden de eleştirilmesini(bir demokratik siyaset için) imkansızlaştırıyor, zira çok fazla değişen bir parti.

Seçime giden yolda basının ayrı bir yeri var. YSK, ya da herhangi bir ilgili kurum: basının, siyasi hareketlere ve eğer imkanı varsa toplumun taleplerine eşitlikçi ve hukuka uygun yaklaşımını cesaretlendiremez, destekleyemezse hiç bir seçimin demokrasi adına yapılmasına imkan yok. Zira ortada demokratik gelenek adına da pek bir şey yok.

(Bkz: European Electoral Heritage: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2013)050-e )

Kaldı ki burada ihtiyaç olan sadece seçim dönemiyle sınırlı da değil. Daha da kötüsü Türkiye'de partiler üstü gazetecilik diye bir şey var. Partiler üstü gazeteler New York Times hatta Washington Post'u kendilerine örnek aldıklarını söylemekten geri kalmasalar da ne NYT ne de WP editoryal bağımsızlığında belli değerlerin öncelik geldiğini yani editoryal bağımsızlığın belli prensip ve değerlerle sağlandığını, en yolsuz ve manipülatif örneklerde bile, bir kenara atmazlar.

Bizim partiler üstü gazetelerimiz hiç bir zaman böyle olmadılar. Bizim partiler üstü gazeteler, partiler üstü bir hareket olmanın rahatlığını seçtiler, cesaretlendirdiler. Böyle bir basında oylama sonucunda AKP (ya da, CHP) gibi partilerden başka sonuç çıkmaz. Bu partilere denge sağlayabilecek oluşumların yol alabilmesi imkansızlaşır.

Basının en nihayetinde siyasi (herhangi) bir partinin yani hareketin oluşturulabilmesi temelinden siyasi konularda yayıncılık hakkına sahip olduğu prensibinin yorulmaksızın vurgulanması şarttır:

Her siyasi hareket, parti ya da yayınlar yoluyla insan haklarından kaynaklı ancak belli şartlar nedeniyle (başkalarından) farklı "öncelikleriyle" kimlik kazanıyor ya da çeşitleniyor ve demokratik mantık içinde şartlar değiştikçe (iyimser olursak) iyileştikçe (refah vs.) önceliklerin (başkalarıyla) ortak bir zemin bulması gerekiyor.

Bir kere bu kademe yani genele yönelim için hukuk güvenliği, bağımsız yargı ve demokrasiyi önemseyen bir anayasa mahkemesi gerekir ki özel olan öncelikler emniyette olsun.

Her hangi bir parti seçim güvenliğini sağlasın, ekonomi programı ortaya koysun demek: Türkiye'de öteden beri olduğu gibi "halk hukuk düzenini ve refahı oylasın bakalım" demekle aynı. Oysa bu kademede değil Türkiye. Hala değil. Kaldı ki bunlar oylanacak şeyler değil. Bunlar için belli konularda referandum yapılabilir, ancak bu da ayrı bir konu.

-

UniDem Conference "Constitution making as an instrument of democratic transition" (Istanbul) - 08/10/1992 - 10/10/1992 - http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/events/?id=-135

European Electoral Heritage - 10 years of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters - http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2013)050-e

CDL-AD(2010)024-e
Guidelines on political party regulation, by OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission - Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 84th Plenary Session, (Venice, 15-16 October 2010) http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2010)024-e

CDL-AD(2002)023rev-e

Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report - Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 52nd session (Venice, 18-19 October 2002) in English http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/CDL-AD(2002)023rev-e.aspx

CDL(2015)007-bil

Table on the Method of nomination of candidates within political parties

http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(2015)007-bil#

Style of Politics

"Presidentialism has important consequences for the whole style of politics. There are enormous varieties of how much power presidents have in the different constitutions. These differences are all very important, but I think that the important thing is that in presidentialism the whole style of politics is different . Now you might say that presidentalism can and has worked. In fact, presidentialism has worked in the United States, but the United States is a very unique political system. It has worked in Costa Rica and, with some qualifications, in Venezuela. One of the characteristics that makes it work in these countries is the two - party system. There is a high correlation between stability and instability of presidential systems and the two - party system. But two - party systems are not very likely to be generated by societies with very complex social structures and with ethnic, cultural and ideologic cleavages. There is no general tendency towards two - party systems but more multi - party systems. " 

(Juan LINZ, Professor of Political and Social Science, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A. Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM)   

Recent debates on Turkey's politics is how will the politics take shape as recently AKP and MHP seems to be in cooperation at least in the discourse and CHP being comfortable at its own and also HDP only political representation of the Kurdish political existence left aside with its pros and cons in means of contribution to the democracy, it's a political scene formed within political parties formed only by the organisation of values, dogmas more than policies in means of political movement.

There are of course policy side of each party but policy is very much identified with the political (or governmental) power maybe to gain attention of the both public and also other notions that are contributing parts of the electoral process, yet the supply of policy of the political parties are not shaped by the components of a modern democracy such as individual rights and freedoms but many other notions are in this dynamic yet the only intersection is populist discourse to maintain a democratic policy(!) getting together the public vote and the requisites of the formation of a political party.

There is a fundamental difference in the way the legitimacy of the elected president and of the elected congress are perceived. This was already well described in this text from 1852:  

"While the votes of France are split up among the seven hundred and fifty members of the National Assembly, they are here, on the contrary, concentrated on a single individual. While each separate representative of the people represents only this or that party, this or that town, this or that bridgehead, or even only the mere necessity of electing some one of the seven hundred and fifty, in which neither the cause nor the man if closely examined, he is the elect of the nation and the act of his election is the trump that the sovereign people plays once every four years. The elected National Assembly stands in a metaphysical relation, but the elected president in a personal relation, to the nation. The National Assembly, indeed, exhibits in its individual representatives the manifold aspects of the national spirit, but in the president this national spirit finds its incarnation. As against the Assembly, he possesses a sort of divine right; he is president by the grace of the people."  

This is a quotation from Karl Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It shows that it is not a new phenomenon that presidentialism leads to populism and personalisation of politics. A lot has been said and written about the populism and personalisation of politics in Latin America. But it is not just a cultural characteristic, it is the result of the institutions. Presidentialism fosters that kind of leadership. 

(Juan LINZ, Professor of Political and Social Science, Yale University, New Haven, U.S.A. Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM) 

Yet I find each leader of the political parties in Turkey quite closer to the presidentialism but the political climate as well may also have allowance to this...

By acclaimed good political scientists here are some further readings:
From Semi-Democracy to Full Autocracy: 'Statist Communalism' in Turkey - Nov 12 2017 

A dead crowd: statist communalism, autocracy and resistance - Nov 21 2017 

Umut Özkırımlı - AhvalNews

One more push, republicans, if you want to be social democrats! Jan 06 2018 

Yahya Madra - AhvalNews 

*

Populus Latin equivalent of the Greek demos (δήμος) is actually quite important fact for political historians and scientists: yet should give some clues about the style of politics in different traditions. 

Style of politics, when confused has impact on, first, journalists but also calls for a reevaluation on the profession for them as well in confusing periods. If the journalists can not endure it, for which I have observed in Turkey, than the public also begin to withdraw from the politics as populus but leave the decision all to the elections as demos, maybe.

Populism is deriving from Latin Populus, may be because in the Roman Empire, policy in the Senate could be shaped and made run by Rhetorics given by the representatives, on which I haven't enough study but those rhetorics were discourses based on a certain tradition. 

I have always found the Greek demos closer to the Indian civilization as classes separated but a mutual decision was obtained through participation, as I say it based on the traits I could find while trying to figure out nothing further, political history especially of those Roman Empire and Greek civilization is difficult to study, but those two styles were different in style but same in purpose, seemed to me.

It must not be forgotten, however, that a Constitution is a whole and that this "whole" must be coherent. Some of the options indicated are doubtless independent the one from the other. For example, a parliamentary system can be twinned with incomplete bicameralism or with monocameralism. But complete bicameralism (equality of the two Chambers) would imply that the Government could be ousted by one or other of the Chambers and this would increase the risk of government instability which militates against the smooth functioning of institutions. Similarly, the voting age can be higher than the age of majority if it is thought that more maturity is required for public affairs than for the decisions of private life. But it would be inconsistent to admit that one could participate in the management of public affairs at an age when one is not judged fit to manage one's own.  

In other words, the authors of a Constitution are not in the position of a reader who buys books which might differ greatly from each other and be of heterogeneous types, but rather in that of an engineer building a machine who chooses parts which can work together. 

(George Vedel, Istanbul, 1992: UNIDEM)

*

I have seen the exposition on Charles II in London. It was an era of restoration succeeding political disrupt in the Monarchy, parliament and country, Charles II maintained a transformation through I would say peaceful means. The most important lesson maybe I would find how Charles II found a way for a restoration by utilizing the arts, but also it was a discovery of an instrument for the shaping of a mutual political will as a Monarch as well as a leader of a commonwealth (republic), during a political uncertainty, not to shape it himself but to construct a base for this.

Today, a republic and a weak and a torn democracy and presidential style politicians, one of the few means we can find for such is journalism. I would wish it would be the arts, literature, society but these are not really established in Turkey, I humbly think.

*

"78. Attaching formal rights to the opposition as such is first and foremost a concept applicable in Westminster Style parliaments, based on first-past-the-post electoral rules, which promotes a system with only two major parliamentary factions – the governing party and the “opposition”. In the British tradition this is sometimes emphasized by referring to the main parliamentary opposition faction with a capital “O”, and even as “The loyal Opposition”, or “Her Majesty’s Opposition”. In the UK Parliament there are a number of conventions and provisions on procedure based on the concept of the “opposition”., for example, the right of the leader of the opposition to a weekly period of questioning of the Prime Minister and a convention that the opposition members chair certain committees of the House."

(...)

"171. The existence of the Venice Commission is based on the idea that democracy can and should be promoted and protected “through law”. Legal recognition of certain parliamentary opposition and minority rights is a core issue in this regard. At the same time, the most important element for ensuring good parliamentary democracy is a tolerant and mature political tradition and culture, under which the governing faction does not abuse its power in order to suppress the opposition, and the opposition for its part engages actively and constructively in the political processes.  

CDL-AD(2010)025-e - Report on the role of the opposition in a democratic Parliament, adopted by the Venice Commission, at its 84th Plenary Session (Venice 15-16 October 2010) 

What will represent Mr Demirtaş: status of the Kurds in Turkey

Selahattin Demirtaş, lawyer by formation, was involved in the politics from the young ages within the Kurdish -I would describe as a self-discovery- movement. This movement was involving many generations of having different experiences in the face of a solid resistance to their recognition as a society with constant ethnic traits forming their cultural bonds (or Völkerdaseins) such as language.

This search for an identity under difficult circumstances makes it a difficult subject to understand in the context of the Turkish politics and history. Yet even observation is difficult because it involves historically a self-claimed political party with a military organ holding terrorist attacks towards Turkish Republic being taken as responsible for the suppression of the Kurds in search of an identity, broadly.

Turkish Republic unfortunately took apparent measures about its Kurdish subjects to prevent threats to its security however we should here especially take our attention on a fundamental question about democracy: Without having a maintained relation, in the broadest meaning, with the State, or the administrative body: can a group of peoples democratic status be preserved? (Which makes me think of the election of political bodies as a form of participatory democracy is not only a beginning but a consequence of a peaceful political settlement, an acquisition by a successful political integration)

Its further consequences can be traced in furious yelling and disputes from both sides.

Fear is common, in this case: and even the context of it. And this fear is, unfortunately, subject to, in a pervasive manner, to the usual citizens. Dialogue, diplomacy could be maintained more peacefully if ever the concerns could be able to induced to a specific representation, but the masses are involved.

"Der Untergang des Abendlandes, zunächst ein örtlich und zeitlich beschränktes Phänomen wie das ihm entsprechende des Unterganges der Antike, ist, wie  man sieht, ein philosophisches Thema, das, in seiner ganzen Schwere begriffen, alle großen Fragen des Seins in sich schließt.

Will man erfahren, in welcher Gestalt das Erlöschen der abendländischen Kultur vor sich geht, so muß  man zuvor erkannt haben, was Kultur ist, in welchem Verhältnis sie zur sichtbaren Geschichte, zum Leben, zur Seele, zur Natur, zum Geiste steht, unter welchen Formen sie in Erscheinung tritt und inwiefern diese Formen — Völker, Sprachen und Epochen, Schlachten und Ideen, Staaten und Götter, Künste und Kunstwerke, Wissenschaften, Rechte, Wirtschaftsformen und Weltanschauungen, große Menschen und große Ereignisse — Symbole und als solche zu deuten sind."
Spengler: 1920

Societies, civilizations, people are joyful, rich, enchanting. Yet, it also makes it gigantic in movements, attitudes, quests and responses.

Fear had important impacts on political processes, which is important to be discussed within the political science maybe especially in this time of the populists where passion as a form of discourse by consultative means highly employed.

HDP with a wide-range of politicians has proposed a modern and contemporary "minority politics" enjoyed by the concentration of democratic demands in the Gezi event, which was historical because along with the public supporters the "Minority" concept in Turkey has been rediscovered without assumptions of being bonded to ethnicity, whereas the relation of ethnicity and minority is better to be handled with different legal notions other than political.

In the case of Demirtaş, this should be a problem of representation among various predicaments related to the history, civilization, culture, etc., I consider.